@Cerberus I short, I had an idealistic approach to language learning. I saw perfection in knowing everything and then being able to fill anyone’s shoes (write a journalist’s report, make a politician’s speech, etc). I know that’s silly, but I subconsciously thought I must work toward that goal. I was in awe of people who had all the clichéd phrases at their fingertips and could crank out profuse jargon without a break, not because I saw any virtue in that, but only because I couldn’t do that.
Then I see Orwell’s list of banalities, meaningless words and dying metaphors, and I realize I already don’t know more than half of them. Should I really set out to learn them all only to be able to avoid them? That is not to say I don't need to learn idiomatic phrases and long words at all. I’m just questioning the perfectionistic attitude that says my knowledge of a language should uniformly encompass virtually everything.
So I say to myself: With a practical approach and a little patience, you can find your own way from under the soil and flourish to your full capacity. No need to constantly compare yourself to everybody else and nag about your insecurities.
This was just a reflection. I thought writing it down might help sort it out in my head. You don't have to respond to it. :)
I just stumbled upon a Reddit post titled:
My wife and I's seafood collaboration dinner. How does it look?
Sure enough, the top comment immediately points out that it should be "my wife's and my". However, a cross-post to the Grammar subreddit produced the following comment:
It's fine a...
@Færd That depends upon a few factors. One is how commonly you'll encounter the idiom. Even if you'll never use it, you need to make an effort to comprehend what other people are trying to communicate. The other thing is that if you plan to write any fiction, each of the characters should communicate in a way that matches their personalities, and not everybody has the eloquence of Patrick Henry.
It should be noted that Mr. Orwell is perhaps most famous for writing the sort of language he would personally resent and discourage.
Also it is practically impossible to use language without using some sort of dead metaphor. You would have to drop almost every instance of a preposition from your statements, as they liken the connection between certain words to positions and movements that are rarely considered with any conscious effort on the part of the speaker.
Hence Mr. Orwell's advice to break any of his rules, before writing anything barbaric, is probably quite sound advice.
@Tonepoet Although I totally agree with the essay's general message, I didn't mean to corroborate all the details. Particularly, I think such strong obsession with dismissing all hackneyed figures of speech is with good cause only if you've altogether mistaken them for aesthetic features that will give your language an authentic feel. They will not, and that is not where creativity happens. But that doesn't mean using any dead metaphor will necessarily blemish your whole composition.
There may be some other minor points in the essay with which I disagree; I'd have to read it again to be able to be accurate in criticizing them. But in all fairness to him, he does advice against using those rules blindly (as you quoted), and he does admit to breaking them himself in that essay.
And, well, non of these were the central point of my messages up there. :) I just wanted to declare that I gave up the intention to memorize the whole ODO, or something to that effect.
> Orwell's admonition to avoid using the passive voice has also been criticised, Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage refers to three statistical studies of passive versus active sentences in various periodicals, stating: "the highest incidence of passive constructions was 13 percent. Orwell runs to a little over 20 percent in "Politics and the English Language". Clearly he found the construction useful in spite of his advice to avoid it as much as possible".
Again it's a matter of style. S&W were giving writing advice to undergrads who are just starting to write a lot, and beginners at that stage often resort to certain habits, overuse of the passive supposedly being one of them.
@Færd a long time ago, and pieces of it when discussion like this come up.
@Mitch Even if that's their purpose, they are shit at achieving it. "Don't use the passive: for example, don't write these sentences" (followed by non passive sentences).
They write stuff, people read it, they like it, and then the writers assume they must know everything about the language, so they put their feelings down as a grammar/style book
Here's an internationally famous writer for you, not knowing the difference between the passive and the progressive: https://youtu.be/R66eQLLOins?t=364
@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Whenever he talks about physics (quantum mechanics, relativity, etc) in his books I just get furious. Dude! Why do you have to talk about something you don't know?!
I cannot even finish watching this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tq6be-CZJ3w&feature=youtu.be&t=364 Dude! talking about a complex thing in a simple yet accurate way is not necessarily simple enough for a layman like yourself to do!
> It was literally the moment when both time and space were created. The thing that was banging was the universe itself. It was expanding from an unimaginably tiny point to an unimaginably large universe, unimaginably quickly.
@Færd Tsk, what a shame. One of these days I'll convince one of you lot of folk to read through A.D.E.L. if not for the quality of writing. Noah Webster's definitions often take the form of full paragraphs, which is quite a rarity among the dictionaries of today. His definition of magic and science would give whole new meaning to Arthur C. Clarke's third law, if they were not so old.
I just stumbled upon a Reddit post titled:
My wife and I's seafood collaboration dinner. How does it look?
Sure enough, the top comment immediately points out that it should be "my wife's and my". However, a cross-post to the Grammar subreddit produced the following comment:
It's fine a...
English Language & Usage: Multi-Layer…
English Language & Usage: Multi-Layer…